Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 123, 507 A.2d 66 (Pa. 1986), [1] is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1986 which overruled close to two centuries of decisional law in Pennsylvania and established a common law exception to the rule against hearsay.
If the issue is the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense, the ultimate issue would be the defendant's sanity or insanity during the commission of the crime. . In the past, expert witnesses were allowed to give testimony on ultimate issues, such as the applicability of the insanity defense to a particular defenda
However, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801 and the minority of U.S. jurisdictions that have adopted this rule, a prior inconsistent statement may be introduced as evidence of the truth of the statement itself if the prior statement was given in live testimony and under oath as part of a formal hearing, proceeding, trial, or deposition. [2]
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay ...
On December 1, 2011, the restyled Federal Rules of Evidence became effective. [13] Since the early 2000s, an effort had been underway to restyle the Federal Rules of Evidence as well as other federal court rules (e.g. the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). According to a statement by the advisory committee that had drafted the restyled rules ...
That is, the law limits the ways in which police officers can investigate and arrest a person suspected of a crime. In the event a law enforcement official violates these rules, evidence obtained may be suppressed, which essentially means that the prosecution may not use the evidence in court to convict a defendant of the crime charged.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Friday reversed a lower court's ruling from almost two weeks ago that had said the two most populous counties of the battleground state will not be able to throw ...
Collateral estoppel (CE), known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that, "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ... preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case". [1]